Method for assaying multi-component mixtures

ABSTRACT

A method and apparatus for identifying and differentiating multi-component mixtures and identifying contamination thereof using direct comparison of characteristics of the analyte and characteristics of a standard sample of a known compound. These characteristics were obtained using methods and apparatus of spectrum analysis ensuring the possibility of receiving characteristic optical shapes (multi-dimensional signatures) of samples under comparison, which signatures represent a total set of spectral distributions of intensity values for light subjected to interaction with a sample, and the process of correlation of relative intensity values of light subjected to interaction with a sample at assigned wavelengths. The comparison of different optical shapes (signatures) through comparing the respective intensity values at the assigned wave-lengths, ensures reliable identification of samples and obtaining information as to contamination or non-contamination, which may be identified afterwards by appropriate analytical methods.

FIELD OF INVENTION

The present invention relates to analysis of substances and materials by optical methods, particularly for identifying and assaying multicomponent mixtures, as well as for analytical screening of trace amounts of contaminants in complex media, including potentially anthropogenic contaminants in objects of life support and the environment.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Practically all things, both natural and man-made, in any aggregative state, are multi-component mixtures. Even super-pure chemically individual substances that have been subjected to multiple purification steps always contain a set of trace impurities. For a number of reasons, it is nearly impossible, using current techniques, to separate these impurities from the desired component.

For example, even ideally purified deionized water contains trace amounts, at least, of dozens of humus impurities (Lavrik et al., 2000). Distilled spirits produced by the highest separation efficiency contain more than 200 trace components (Karagodin, 1998). Marketable cyclohexane contains up to 70 trace components (Dedkov, 2002). Yet these three entities are considered to be pure substances.

The situation with industrial products is much more complicated, because in making these products a certain set of impurity components are introduced as part of the process of production, and these impurities define the quality and consumption features of a product. Other components, which are sometimes present in trace amounts, define the safety of the product.

At present, about 80,000 kinds of chemical products are manufactured all over the world, most of which products are toxic to warm-blooded animals (Korte, 1996). The appearance of these substances in the environment and, particularly, in life support systems, poses a serious threat. The problem of water quality on the planet is particularly important, because 90% of the water is consumed for industrial use and is returned to the environment with wastewater (Dedkov, 2002). In fact, more than 500 individual man-made substances have been detected in wastewater, almost half of which are regarded as very dangerous, while the rest are characterized as dangerously harmful to vital functions and the functioning of ecosystems (Fortoutan-Red, 1982).

In other words, in practically all fields of human activities, there is a need for effective analytical techniques so that dangerous substances can be detected and eliminated.

Traditional methods for analyzing compounds in multi-component mixtures are usually based on extraction of the analyte from the mixture, with further qualitative-quantitative correlation. This procedure requires a number of instrumental physical and chemical methods, often resulting in the requirement for preliminary treatment or concentration of a sample. Modern standardized analytical processes cover only about 20% of the total available set of components (Devjatykh et al., 1994). This results from the fact that the substances being analyzed may consist of tens and hundreds of individual compounds, and exhaustive analysis of the all of the components of a multi-component mixture becomes a very long, laborious, and expensive procedure. At the same time, modern conditions dictate the requirement for rapid analysis methods which are simple in execution and which are able to rapidly detect the widest array of contaminants.

The methodology of analytical screening (Beyermann, 1982) relates to such methods, which itself is not strictly an analytical procedure. The essence of this methodology consists in rapid screening of suspicious objects requiring further standard by stricter methods. The parameters of these objects deviate from the parameters of standard object by any characteristic which is subject to rapid methods of instrumental control. It is evident that, for multi-component mixtures, this characteristic is the identity or distinction of a compound in the product being analyzed, as compared with a standard compound which corresponds strictly with the manufacturer's process, or with a natural set of natural components wherein absence of the contaminants is confirmed. Thus, the solution of the task of rapid analysis does not require decoding of a qualitative-quantitative compound of a mixture. For that, it is quite enough to find an analytic method making it possible to receive some integral characteristic, or a set of characteristics, which can be measured instrumentally, ensuring unique identification of a compound in a mixture, and, at the same time, making it possible to detect qualitative changes of the compound at the level of trace amounts of a substance.

Optical spectrum methods of analysis are the most attractive for analyzing multi-component mixtures. One peculiarity of optical spectra is the fact that they are characterized by complex reflection of both the component compound of the mixture and characteristics of individual components related to their chemical structure, and a complicated set of interactions of the components of the mixture with each other of a non-covalent nature (supra-molecular interactions [Lenn, 1995]. These interactions define the per-molecular structure of a substance of nano-dimensional scale that is responsible for producing the optical spectra (Bakhshiev, 1972; Lakowicz, 1983; Suppan, 1990). In view of these circumstances, the optical spectra of multi-component mixtures are uniquely sensitive to the slightest changes of a component in the mixture, which spectra appear both owing to mechanisms of intramolecular photonics and as a result of the influence of supramolecular interactions upon spectroscopic visualization of these mechanisms.

Photo-absorption methods are the most widely used analytical techniques. These methods are based on relative measurement of the light falling on a sample and passing through the sample. When these measurements are performed, systematic hardware inaccuracies are taken into account automatically, making these methods suitable for quantitative assessments. So, in particular, methods are known to analyze liquids for determining their identity or differences. Likewise, methods are known for determining contaminants in liquids, which methods consist of measuring absorption or reflectance spectra of an unknown liquid to determine characteristic spectra, finger prints, and/or profiles of data, and to determine the ratio of intensities of the light reflected or absorbed by a standard sample and a tested sample within the selected spectral section (Ingrum, 1991; Littlejohn, 1991). However, the absorption and reflectance spectra have low sensitivity and are ineffective for identifying trace amounts of impurities.

The luminescence spectra (Siegel et al., 1985) are much more responsive to trace amounts of impurities and are very selective. At the same time, for identifying components of a mixture, three dimensional luminescence spectra (Webor, 1961) are most appropriate, which spectra reflect the complete set of spectral-luminescent characteristics of the test object. These spectra may be represented both as an isometric projection in coordinates of excitation wave length and irradiation wave length, or contoured spectra, as shown in FIGS. 1 and 2. Particularly, there is a known method for identifying a petroleum type by contoured luminescence excitation-irradiation spectra (Rho et al., 1978; Corfield et al., 1981). Also, very striking differences are observed for petroleum synthesis products. An illustration of this is found in FIG. 1 in which the contoured spectra for various brands of gasoline are shown.

The drawbacks of the luminescence spectra are that the excitation-irradiation spectra are not able to display a complete component makeup of a sample, but only part of the components. To receive contoured spectra, mathematical interpolation software is used, which inevitably distorts the analysis result, making them of little use for correct identification and/or determination of differences for mixtures which are similar to each other. More, as stated in Siegel et al., 1985, visual analysis by three-dimensional spectra for mixtures containing more than three components presents a quite insoluble problem. For example, FIG. 2 shows the contoured spectra for luminescence of tap water and the same water with added chlorine. As one can see, the visual differences of contoured spectra for these samples are imperceptible.

The closest solution has been the method of identification of spirit-based liquids by the difference in matrices composed using a complex set of spectral profiles of a light transmission ratio, and luminescence profiles normalized for a unit, when excited by different wavelengths of light (Nekrasov, 2000). This method totally excludes the human factor, resulting in positive identity and differences in trace amounts of impurities, even for objects which are very close in their composition (Nekrasov et al., 2000). The drawbacks of this method are that analytical matrices used for identification contain data of absolute measurements of the intensities being analyzed, and do not take into account the spectral light transfer ratio of the optical path of an analytic device, and the spectral responsiveness of photo-detectors. This makes it impossible to correctly compare the analysis results and practically excludes their use in forming centralized electronic data banks. Also, during the actual measurement, noise caused by intensity fluctuations of the light source, being particularly perceptible in the ultraviolet range of the spectrum, is not taken into account, thus influencing the selectivity of the method and its possibilities for identification.

At the same time, the spectral characteristics used in the methods described above (Corfield et al., 1981; Siegel et al., 1985; Nekrasov, 2000) reflect, mainly, only those components of a mixture that have pronounced chromophore characteristics and/or luminescence. In both absorption and luminescence of multi-component systems, the components not having their own chromophore and luminophore characteristics are shown weakly. Both methods, by objective reasons have an analytical range which is restricted by the high concentrations of components of the mixture, resulting in drastic restriction of the possibilities of identification where there are high concentrations of characteristic components. These circumstances do not allow one, particularly for ultra-clean substances and compounds, to use referencing of the objects into classes and to effectively use on-line features of communications networks and electronic data banks for identification. It makes it impossible to identify unknown objects in the physical absence of a standard sample of a compound.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

It is an object of the present invention to overcome the aforesaid deficiencies in the prior art.

It is an object of the present invention to provide a method for determining the identity of components in multicomponent mixtures.

It is another object of the present invention to detect contaminants in multi-component mixtures.

According to the present invention, a highly effective method is provided to determine the identity or differences between multi-component mixtures, as well as to detect contaminants in multi-component mixtures, by means of comparing the spectroscopic parameters set, which parameters completely characterize a component in the mixture.

The present invention provides a reagent-free express instrumental method for registering and analyzing electronic optical signatures of multi-component mixtures. This method is suitable for forming dynamic computer-based data banks, making it possible to control the content of industrial products, life support systems, and the environment, as well as to prevent harmful and dangerous contaminations in these systems.

According to the present invention, the complex responsiveness of objects which are analyzed to the light influence by means of comparing absorption, spectral, luminescent, and Raman characteristics of the object being analyzed. These characteristics were obtained while performing relative measurements of characteristics of compounds being identified and characteristics of a standard sample and/or a calibration sample of a known compound by a quasi-doublebeam method ensuring calculation and compensation of systematic and random hardware inaccuracies directly during implementation of comparative measurements and/or with further mathematical treatment of the results.

A complex analysis using three complementary methods, photo absorption, luminescence, and Raman scattering, promotes increasing responsiveness and selectivity of the method (Beyermann, 1982). The high express degree of analysis is secured by obtaining the complete set of absorption, spectral and luminescent, and Raman characteristics during the united analytical cycle of measuring and comparing the characteristics of samples under comparison in each of the selected points of the specific analytical range in one specialized analytical device, and/or while comparing the measured characteristics of a sample being identified in an unknown mixture with the electronic signature of a standard sample of a known mixture.

Measurements of transmitted or reflected light are executed using standard methods, such as those shown in Weber, 1961 and Rabek, 1982. Intensity of luminescent radiation irradiated by a sample is measured in accordance with methods described by Lakowicz, 1983; Parker, 1968; and Rabek, 1982. At the same time, measurements are performed for intensity values of the exciting light I₀ at the excitation wavelength λ_(i), and the intensity values of signals being measured are normalized for this value. Calculation and compensation of the light transfer ratio for an optical path of the registering and measuring apparatus are performed by means of the procedure of relative measurements of intensity values for the sample being identified and a standard sample and/or specially prepared calibration sample of luminescent mixtures of a certain, strictly unchangeable compound with stable by time spectral and luminescent characteristics.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 shows contoured luminescence excitation-irradiation spectra of motor gasoline of different brands. FIG. 1A shows the spectra for A-76. FIG. 1B shows spectra for A-93.

FIG. 2A shows contoured luminescence excitation-irradiation spectra of clean water. FIG. 2B shows the same water containing an impurity of active chlorine.

FIG. 3 is a block diagram of a specialized analytical device (a) and diagram of switching positions of samples when measuring the intensity values of the probing light I₀ (b), the passing light I_(T), and the luminescent light I_(L) (or the Raman scattering I_(R)) for a standard sample of a known mixture K (c) and a sample being identified of an unknown compound U (d):

-   LS—a light source, -   λ_(i) SM—a device for extracting the monochromatic probing     irradiation, -   F₁—a device of focusing the probing ray; -   SH—a holder of samples with a device for replacing a standard sample     and a sample being identified in the analytical channel: K is a     standard sample of a known mixture, U is a sample being identified     of an unknown compound; -   F_(2,3)—devices for gathering the probing light I₀, the passing     light I_(T), and the luminescent light I_(L) (or the Raman     scattering I_(R)) to photo-detector devices, -   λ_(j) SM—a device for extracting the luminescence wavelengths (or     the Raman scattering), -   PD₁, PD₂—photo-detector devices for measuring the intensity values,     accordingly, for the probing light and the passed light, and the     luminescent light or the Raman scattering; -   R&RM—a module of registration and treatment of signals including     power and control units (remote control) of execution units, and a     module of communication with an external computing device and/or a     device for displaying the analysis results.

FIG. 4 shows spectra of intensity ratios for impurity luminescence of water samples with the same fixed excitation wavelength (λ_(ex)=230 nm):

-   -   centralized municipal water supply system (curves 1-3);     -   the same water contaminated with municipal wastewater (curve 4);     -   the same water contaminated with 3,4-benzopyrene (curve 5);     -   the same water contaminated with petroleum derivatives (curve         6).

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The present invention can be described by the following non-limiting examples, which examples are given for illustration only and not for limitation.

EXAMPLE 1

-   -   a. Light from a wide-band source of optical radiation is divided         into spectral components, and/or the assigned sections of         monochromatic light with a spectral width of Δ_(i) are extracted         from this light in the selected range of wavelengths λ_(i) while         ensuring the possibility of changing the spectral position of         these sections with the assigned pitch Δλ_(i)≧Δ_(i),. The         extracted monochromatic light is then focused onto a probing         beam having a specified geometric shape, and the light is         directed onto a sample under analysis;     -   b. A sample of a known mixture K and a sample of an unknown         mixture U, are irradiated, by turns, with monochromatic light at         the assigned wave-lengths λ₁, λ₂, . . . λ_(m) from the selected         spectral range λ_(i);     -   c. Light falling onto a sample, passing through a sample, or         reflected by a sample, and the luminescent light is collected         and directed to independent photo-detector devices;     -   d. The intensity values of the light gathered on the photo         detector is measured for each of the extracted wavelengths λ₁,         λ₂, . . . λ_(m) of the selected spectral range λ_(i),. That is,         the probing light I₀, the light passing through a sample or         reflected by a sample I_(T), and the luminescence light of a         sample I_(L), including steps of decomposition of the         luminescent light into a variety of spectral sections, and/or         sequential extraction of the specified sections of wave-lengths         of λ₁, λ₂, . . . λ_(n) with a width of Δ_(j), with the assigned         pitch of Δλ_(j)≧Δ_(j), where each section corresponds with the         predetermined characteristic wave-length of the light in the         selected spectral range λ_(j), which is gathered and registered         by a photo-detector is measured.     -   e. The relative intensity of the gathered light passing through         a sample, or reflected by a sample, is defined at each of         extracted wave-lengths λ_(m), and the luminescent light for each         of the extracted wave-lengths λ_(m), λ_(n) for a known mixture         and unknown mixture, in accordance with the following         expressions: $\begin{matrix}         {{{T^{K}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)} = \frac{I_{T}^{K}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)}{I_{0}^{K}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)}};{{T^{U}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)} = \frac{I_{T}^{U}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)}{I_{0}^{U}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)}};} \\         {{{{L^{K}\left( {\lambda_{m},\lambda_{n}} \right)} = \frac{I_{L}^{K}\left( {\lambda_{m},\lambda_{n}} \right)}{I_{0}^{K}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)}};{{L^{U}\left( {\lambda_{m},\lambda_{n}} \right)} = \frac{I_{L}^{U}\left( {\lambda_{m},\lambda_{n}} \right)}{I_{0}^{U}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)}}},}         \end{matrix}$         where

-   I_(T) ^(K)(λ_(m)),I_(T) ^(U)(λ_(m))—intensity values of passing or     reflected light for samples of a known K mixture and an unknown U     mixture measured within the specified sections λ₁, λ₂, . . . λ_(m)     of the extracted range of wave-lengths of incident radiation λ_(i);

-   I_(L) ^(K)(λ_(m),λ_(n)),I_(L) ^(U)(λ_(m),λ_(n))—intensity values of     the luminescent irradiated by a sample of a known K mixture and a     sample of an unknown U mixture within the specified sections λ₁, λ₂,     . . . λ_(n) of the extracted range of wave-lengths λ_(j) with light     excitation within the specified sections λ₁, λ₂, . . . λ_(m) of the     extracted range of wave-lengths λ_(i);

-   I₀ ^(K)(λ_(m)),I₀ ^(U)(λ_(m))—intensity values of incident probing     radiation falling on the appropriate samples at the time of     performing measurements;     -   f. The corresponding relative intensity values of the light         passing through a sample, or reflected by a sample, on each of         extracted wave-lengths λ_(m), and the luminescent light for each         of the extracted wave-lengths λ_(m), λ_(n) for a known mixture         and an unknown mixture are compared, and the compliance between         the unknown mixture and the known mixture is defined by the         following expression:         ${A = {{\frac{1}{2} \times \left( {{\frac{1}{m} \times {\sum\limits_{m = 1}^{m}\quad\frac{T^{U}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)}{T^{K}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)}}} + {\frac{1}{m \times n} \times {\sum\limits_{m = 1}^{m}{\sum\limits_{n = 1}^{n}\frac{L^{U}\left( {\lambda_{m},\lambda_{n}} \right)}{L^{K}\left( {\lambda_{m},\lambda_{n}} \right)}}}}} \right)}\quad = {1 \pm \delta}}},$         where

-   T^(K)(λ_(m)),T^(U)(λ_(m))—intensity values of passing or reflected     light for samples of a known K mixture and unknown U mixture,     normalized for the intensity of incident radiation falling on a     sample at the corresponding wave-length;

-   L^(K)(λ_(m),λ_(n))L^(U)(λ_(m),λ_(n))—intensity values of the     luminescent light irradiated by a sample of a known K mixture and     unknown U mixture within the specified sections λ₁, λ₂, . . . λ_(n)     of the extracted range of wave-lengths λ_(j) with light excitation     within the specified sections λ₁, λ₂, . . . λ_(m) of the extracted     range of wave-lengths λ_(i), normalized for intensity of incident     radiation falling on a sample at the corresponding wavelength;

-   m, n—a number of extracted sections with the wave-lengths under     compared within the selected spectral ranges λ_(i) and λ_(j),     accordingly;

-   δ—a value of allowable deflections of the compared values for the     unknown mixture being identified from the corresponding values for     the similar values of a standard sample of a known mixture;     -   g. The presence or absence of foreign impurities (contaminants)         in the mixture under study is defined by the following         expressions:         ${{C_{T}\left( \lambda_{i} \right)} = {\frac{T^{U}\left( \lambda_{m + 1} \right)}{T^{K}\left( \lambda_{m + 1} \right)} - \frac{T^{U}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)}{T^{K}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)}}};$         ${{C_{L}\left( {\lambda_{i},\lambda_{j}} \right)} = {\frac{L^{U}\left( {\lambda_{m + 1},\lambda_{n + 1}} \right)}{L^{K}\left( {\lambda_{m + 1},\lambda_{n + 1}} \right)} - \frac{L^{U}\left( {\lambda_{m},\lambda_{n}} \right)}{L^{K}\left( {\lambda_{m},\lambda_{n}} \right)}}};$         at the same time, if C_(T)(λ_(i))=C_(L)(λ_(i), λ_(j))=0±δ,         foreign impurities in the sample being identified are absent,         and the conclusion about the presence of unwanted contaminations         in the mixture under study may be drawn when there are sections         C_(T)(λ_(i))>0±δ, and/or C_(L)(λ_(i), λ_(j))≠0±δ in the         difference spectra.

EXAMPLE 2

In another embodiment of the present invention, the procedure differs from the procedure of Example 1 as follows: the step of comparing an unknown sample with a known one is replaced with the step of comparing their electronic absorption-luminescent signatures (ALS), for which purpose the following steps are to be added:

-   -   a. Calibration samples Q are prepared, which calibration samples         represent a specially made-up mixture or multi-component         solutions of a strictly identical constant compound, the         absorption or reflectance spectra, and luminescence spectra of         which solution (mixture) are overlapped with the corresponding         spectra of a known mixture within the selected analytical         spectral ranges λ_(i) and λ_(j), i.e. have nonzero intensity in         the specified ranges;     -   b. A standard sample of a known K mixture and a calibration Q         sample are-placed into an analytical device;     -   c. Measurements and transformations of measured values for         intensity of the light passing through or reflected by standard         and calibration samples, and their luminescent light, are         performed in accordance with steps a-e of Example 1, while         taking into account the step of replacing an unknown U sample         with the calibration Q sample;     -   d. An electronic absorption-luminescent signature ALS_(K) of a         standard sample is created as follows:         ${{ALS}_{K} = {{K_{E}} = {\begin{matrix}         \left( \frac{T_{1}^{K}}{T_{1}^{Q}} \right) & \left( \frac{L_{1,1}^{K}}{L_{1,1}^{Q}} \right) & \cdots & \left( \frac{L_{1,n}^{K}}{L_{1,n}^{Q}} \right) \\         \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\         \left( \frac{T_{m}^{K}}{T_{m}^{Q}} \right) & \left( \frac{L_{m,1}^{K}}{L_{m,1}^{Q}} \right) & \cdots & \left( \frac{L_{m,n}^{K}}{L_{m,n}^{Q}} \right)         \end{matrix}}}},$         where:

-   T^(K)(λ_(m)),T^(Q)(λ_(m))-intensity values of passing or reflected     light for a sample of a known K mixture and a sample of a     calibration Q mixture, normalized for intensity of incident     radiation falling on a sample at the corresponding wave-length;

-   L^(K)(λ_(m),λ_(n)),L^(Q)(λ_(m),λ_(n))—intensity values of the     luminescent light irradiated by a sample of a known K mixture and a     calibration Q mixture within the specified sections λ₁, λ₂, . . .     λ_(n) of the extracted range of wave-lengths λ_(j) with light     excitation within the specified sections λ₁, λ₂, . . . λ_(m) of the     extracted range of wave-lengths λ_(i), normalized for intensity of     incident radiation falling on a sample at the corresponding     wave-length;     -   e. An electronic signature of a standard sample ALS_(K) is         entered into the computer database, and/or is saved on an         intermediate medium;     -   f. Steps similar to those in step c of this embodiment are         carried out with a sample of an unknown mixture, including the         step of replacing a standard sample K with a calibration sample         Q, which is strictly identical with the calibration sample used         when measuring a standard sample, and creating an electronic         signature ALS_(U) of a sample being identified:         ${{ALS}_{U} = {{U_{E}} = {\begin{matrix}         \left( \frac{T_{1}^{U}}{T_{1}^{Q}} \right) & \left( \frac{L_{1,1}^{U}}{L_{1,1}^{Q}} \right) & \cdots & \left( \frac{L_{1,n}^{U}}{L_{1,n}^{Q}} \right) \\         \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\         \left( \frac{T_{m}^{U}}{T_{m}^{Q}} \right) & \left( \frac{L_{m,1}^{U}}{L_{m,1}^{Q}} \right) & \cdots & \left( \frac{L_{m,n}^{U}}{L_{m,n}^{Q}} \right)         \end{matrix}}}};$     -   g. Comparing electronic signatures of an unknown mixture         ALS_(U)=∥U_(E)∥ being tested with similar data for a standard         sample of a known mixture ALS_(K)=∥K_(E)∥ by the following         expression: ${{A_{ALS}} = \frac{U_{E}}{K_{E}}},$         at the same time, a conclusion on the identity of the unknown         mixture and the certain mixture may be drawn when all cells of         the matrix ∥A_(ALS)∥ contain only unit elements (i.e.         a_(i)=a_(i,j)=1±δ);     -   h. To define the presence or absence of unwanted contaminants         for the mixture under study by the following expression:         ${{C_{ALS}} = \frac{{U_{E}} - {K_{E}}}{K_{E}}},$     -   at the same time, a conclusion about the presence of unwanted         contaminations in the mixture ∥C_(ALS)∥ under studying may be         drawn when in the matrix there are nonzero elements |c_(i),         c_(i,j)|>|±δ|, the values of which exceed the value of allowable         deflections of the values being compared for the unknown mixture         being identified, from the corresponding values for the similar         values of a standard sample of a known mixture;

EXAMPLE 3

This example differs from Example 1 as follows: a step is added to measure intensity values of Raman scattering of a sample being identified and a standard sample, for which purpose the following steps are to be added:

-   -   a. Samples of an unknown mixture and a known mixture are         irradiated, by turns, with a monochromatic line of a narrow-band         (lined) source of light at one or several selected fixed         frequencies v_(r);     -   b. The light of Raman scattering is gathered onto a         photo-detector device;     -   c. For each of the extracted frequencies v₁, v₂, . . . , v_(p)         of the selected spectral range, intensity values of the light         gathered onto a photo-detector of the line are measured, namely:         the exciting light falling on a sample I_(ex), and the light of         Raman scattering of a sample I_(R), including steps of         decomposition of the light of Raman scattering into a variety of         spectral sections, and/or sequential extraction of the specified         frequency sections v₁, v₂, . . . , v_(p) with a width of Δ_(r),         with assigned pitch Δv_(r)≧Δ_(r), where each section corresponds         to the predetermined characteristic frequency of the light in         the selected spectral range v_(r), which is gathered and         registered by a photo-detector;     -   d. The relative intensity of the gathered light of Raman         scattering at each of the extracted frequencies v₁, v₂, . . . ,         v_(p) for a known and unknown mixtures is defined in accordance         with the following expressions:         ${{R^{K}\left( {v_{ex},v_{p}} \right)} = \frac{I_{R}^{K}\left( {v_{ex},v_{p}} \right)}{I_{ex}^{K}}};{{R^{U}\left( {v_{ex},v_{p}} \right)} = \frac{I_{R}^{U}\left( {v_{ex},v_{p}} \right)}{I_{ex}^{U}}};$         where:

-   I_(R) ^(K)(v_(ex),v_(p)),I_(R) ^(U)(v_(ex),v_(p))—intensity of Raman     scattering irradiated by a sample of a known K mixture and a sample     of an unknown U mixture within the specified sections v₁, v₂, . . .     v_(p) of the extracted frequency range v_(r) with light excitation     at one of the selected frequencies v_(ex);

-   I_(ex) ^(K),I_(ex) ^(U)—intensity of the exciting light falling on     corresponding samples at the time of performing measurements;     -   f. Data for an unknown mixture being tested with are compared         with similar data for a standard sample of a known mixture by         the following expression:         ${A = {\frac{1}{2} \times \left( \frac{R^{U}\left( {v_{ex},v_{p}} \right)}{R^{K}\left( {v_{ex},v_{p}} \right)} \right) \times \quad\left( {{\frac{1}{m} \times {\sum\limits_{m = 1}^{m}\quad\frac{T^{U}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)}{T^{K}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)}}} + {\frac{1}{m \times n} \times {\sum\limits_{m = 1}^{m}\quad{\sum\limits_{n = 1}^{n}\frac{L^{U}\left( {\lambda_{m},\lambda_{n}} \right)}{L^{K}\left( {\lambda_{m},\lambda_{n}} \right)}}}}} \right)}},$         at the same time, a conclusion on the identity of the unknown         mixture and the known mixture may be drawn when A=1±δ;

EXAMPLE 4

This method differs from that of Example 2 as follows: comparison is performed for electronic signatures containing spectral profiles of absorption, luminescence and Raman scattering intensities for an unknown mixture sample (RALS_(U)) and a standard sample (RALS_(K)), which are formed by the method of Example 3, resulting in the following step of normalization of Raman matrixes in the following way:

-   -   a. A calibration sample Q_(R) is prepared, which calibration         sample represents a specially made-up mixture or a         multi-component solution of a strictly identical constant         compound, the luminescence spectrum of which overlaps with the         Raman spectrum of the known mixture within the selected         analytical spectral ranges;     -   b. The intensity of Raman scattering is measured, and the         results are converted similarly to steps b-f of Example 2. The         signatures of a standard sample and a sample being identified         are formed in accordance with the following expressions:         ${{K_{R}} = {{{\begin{matrix}         \left( \frac{R_{1,1}^{K}}{L_{1,1}^{Q_{R}}} \right) & \cdots & \left( \frac{R_{1,p}^{K}}{L_{1,p}^{K}} \right) \\         \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\         \left( \frac{R_{q,1}^{K}}{L_{q,1}^{Q_{R}}} \right) & \cdots & \left( \frac{R_{q,p}^{K}}{L_{q,p}^{Q_{R}}} \right)         \end{matrix}} \nparallel {U_{R}}} = {\begin{matrix}         \left( \frac{R_{1,1}^{U}}{L_{1,1}^{Q_{R}}} \right) & \cdots & \left( \frac{R_{1,p}^{U}}{L_{1,p}^{K}} \right) \\         \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\         \left( \frac{R_{q,1}^{U}}{L_{q,1}^{Q_{R}}} \right) & \cdots & \left( \frac{R_{q,p}^{U}}{L_{q,p}^{Q_{R}}} \right)         \end{matrix}}}},$         where

-   R_(q,p) ^(K),R_(q,p) ^(U)—intensity values of Raman light     scattering, normalized for intensity of the exciting light I_(ex),     for samples of the known K mixture and the unknown U mixture,     measured at the frequencies I_(p) with light excitation at the     frequency I_(q);

-   L_(q,p) ^(Q) ^(R) —the luminescence intensity for a calibration     sample Q_(R), normalized for the intensity of the exciting light     I_(ex);     -   c. The electronic signatures of an unknown mixture ∥U_(E)∥ being         tested are compared with similar data for a standard sample of a         known mixture ∥K_(E)∥, including the step of comparing Raman         matrixes (RALS_(U,K)), by the following expression:         ${{A_{RALS}} = {\left( \frac{U_{R}}{K_{R}} \right) \times \left( \frac{U_{E}}{K_{E}} \right)}},$         where the identity of samples is defined by the following         attribute: ∥A_(RALS)∥=1±δ;

EXAMPLE 5

The process of this embodiment differs from the processes of Examples 1 and 2 as follows: a step is added to dissolve samples of a mixture being identified and a certain standard mixture in appropriate solvents.

The most effective realization of the complex analysis system of the present invention is performed by a specialized multifunctional measuring device which is able to perform relative measurements of absorption spectra and luminescence, as well as Raman scattering, for samples under comparison in a common analytic cycle. This makes it possible to minimize both systematic and random inaccuracies of measurements, and provides a high degree of reliability.

The apparatus of the present invention is illustrated in block diagram in FIG. 3 a. This diagram includes all of the functions of the analytical steps required for the analysis of the present invention.

To perform complex measurements of absorption spectra, luminescence and Raman scattering, a combined light source is used consisting of continuous and line light sources LS, and a matching device, thereby ensuring the possibility of switching and focusing the light from the required source onto a sample.

Step A of Example 1 is performed by a λ_(i)SM-module in the aggregate with a light source LS and a light-gathering device F₁;

-   -   a samples holder SH performs alternate irradiation of samples         (Example 1, step b) and measurements of intensity values for the         probing light I₀, the passing light I_(T), and the luminescent         light I_(L) of a standard sample K and an analyzed sample U         (Example 1, step d), which are performed with different         positions of the holder in regard to the analyzing light beam         (FIG. 3 b-d);     -   gathering the light falling on a sample and passing through it         is performed by a light gathering device F₂ to a photo-detector         PD₁, and gathering the luminescent light is performed by a         light-gathering device F₃ to a photo-detector PD₂, at the same         time the luminescence light is disintegrated into spectral         components, and the required spectral section is extracted from         this light by a λ_(j)SM-module (Example 1, step c);     -   defining the relative intensities of the passed light and the         luminescent light (Example 1, step e), which represent         experimentally measured intensity values for the passed light         I_(T) and the luminescent light I_(L) normalized for I₀. This is         performed while processing signals are measured at different         positions of the sample holder SH (FIG. 3 b-d), by the devices         included in a control and registration module (R&RM), and/or         further mathematical treatment implemented by an external         computing device;     -   the comparison of corresponding relative intensities (Example 1,         step f) is performed similarly to ascertain the identity or         difference of samples being analyzed;     -   the R&RM module also contains devices to control measurements         ensuring switching of sample positions, setting the specified         intervals of the extracted wavelengths, and measuring signals         with a specified time constant, as well as power units of light         sources and photo-detectors (PMT) ensuring stabilization and         automatic correction of power supply modes, and an interface of         communication with an external computing device and/or devices         of accumulation, storage and display of information.

The algorithm of comparison of characteristics of a known sample and an unknown sample provided in the present invention gives an unambiguous characteristic for the mixture being identified, whether it corresponds with a standard sample or not. Inconsistency between a sample being identified and a standard sample is evidence of a difference in their component compounds. The compliance level for a mixture being identified and a standard sample may be characterized by the value of correlation of their absorption-luminescent signatures Θ. In the simplest case, this correlation is expressed by the ratio of a number of coincident elements of matrixes n_(i,j), in accordance with the analytical expressions of the methods by claims 1-4, and the total number of significant elements of matrixes N: Θ=n _(i,j) /N;

This is illustrated with the following nonlimiting examples:

EXAMPLE 6

As an example of liquids identification, the following liquids are chosen (Table 1):

-   -   two samples of drinking water from different sources;     -   two samples of food spirit from different manufacturers;     -   two samples of vodka from different manufacturers;     -   two samples of motor gasoline of different types;     -   two samples of shampoo of the same type from different         manufacturers.

Each of the above-listed objects, by turns, is considered as a standard sample and compared by turns with the whole aggregate of tested samples for the compliance level in accordance with the method of Examples 1 and 2. As one can see in Table 1, compliance is not observed for a standard sample and tested ones for all comparisons, with the exception of total identity of samples. At the same time, objects having the same microcompound elements (water, ethanol, vodka) have the higher compliance level. TABLE 1 Control sample Liquid Compliance level type N^(o) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Water 1 1 1 0.59 0.7 0.67 0.67 0.56 0.35 0.3 0.2 0.15 Water 2 2 0.59 1 0.68 0.66 0.63 0.52 0.42 0.37 0.25 0.28 spirit 1 3 0.7 0.68 1 0.9 0.77 0.64 0.15 0.1 0.11 0.15 spirit 2 4 0.67 0.66 0.9 1 0.76 0.61 0.12 0.1 0.15 0.12 Vodka 1 5 0.67 0.63 0.77 0.76 1 0.6 0.25 0.2 0.23 0.18 Vodka 2 6 0.56 0.52 0.64 0.61 0.6 1 0.23 0.18 0.25 0.28 gasoline 1 7 0.35 0.42 0.15 0.12 0.25 0.23 1 0.68 0.42 0.37 gasoline 2 8 0.3 0.37 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.18 0.68 1 0.35 0.32 Shampoo 9 0.2 0.25 0.11 0.15 0.23 0.25 0.42 0.35 1 0.4 1 Shampoo 10 0.15 0.28 0.15 0.12 0.18 0.28 0.37 0.32 0.4 1 2

It should be noted that ascertaining the identity of samples by comparing their differences, within the framework of the present invention, presents different tasks which differ in the amount of time required. To ascertain unambiguously the identity of objects being compared, it is necessary to determine the compliance by the greatest possible number of parameters, whereas, for ascertaining their difference, it is enough when at least one of the parameters under comparison for a mixture being identified differs from a corresponding parameter for a standard sample. This is illustrated by Examples 7 and 8.

EXAMPLE 7

In Table 2, a comparison of compliance levels is presented for pure liquids which were obtained from correlating absorption-luminescent signatures (ALS) in accordance with the method shown in Examples 1 and 2, and the same signatures supplemented by the Raman co-factor (RALS) in accordance with the processes of Examples 3 and 4. As can be seen in Table 2, adding the Raman component does not substantially change the value of the conformity level for objects related by being in the same chemical class, and results in drastic differences for objects which are in different chemical classes. TABLE 2 Identity Control water spirit cyclohexane method sample 1 2 3 4 5 ALS 1 1 0.59 0.7 0.67 0.25 2 0.59 1 0.68 0.66 0.2 3 0.7 0.68 1 0.9 0.4 4 0.67 0.66 0.9 1 0.35 5 0.25 0.2 0.4 0.35 1 RALS 1 1 0.59 0.18 0.17 0 2 0.59 1 0.17 0.16 0 3 0.18 0.17 1 0.85 0.3 4 0.17 0.16 0.85 1 0.26 5 0 0 0.3 0.26 1

EXAMPLE 8

In FIG. 4, correlation spectra are shown for intensity values of impurity luminescence using the same fixed excitation wavelength (230 nm) for water taken from various points of the municipal water supply system (curves 1-3 on FIG. 4) and for the same water contaminated with municipal wastewater (curve 4); 3,4-benzopyrene (curve 5); and petroleum derivatives (curve 6). As one can see from FIG. 4, all three samples of clean water have minimal differences, while at the same time the presented samples have perceptible differences using the complete set of parameters (this value for samples 1, 2, and 3, respectively, are 0.86, 0.9 and 0.95). It is clear that contaminants in the water change the situation drastically, so that users can determine that these are distinct from a standard sample only on the basis of the date presented, which reduces the analysis time by a factor of about 10-20.

EXAMPLE 9

This example shows identification of a variety of industrial products produced for domestic purposes:

-   -   Three samples of dry yeast, two of which belong to the same         production lot of the same manufacturer (samples 1-1 and 1-2),         and a sample of a similar product from another manufacturer         (sample 2);     -   Three samples of washing powder of the same brand from the same         production lot from a well-known manufacturer (samples 1-1 and         1-2), and a sample of a similar product of another brand from         the same manufacturer (sample 2);     -   Three samples of domestic gel-like washing liquid of the same         brand, from eth same production lot, from a well-known         manufacturer (samples 1-1 and 1-2), and a sample of a similar         product from the same manufacturer, but another brand (sample         2);

One can distinctly see in Table 3 that samples of products manufactured from strictly identical raw materials during the same processing cycle have a high compliance level with each other. This compliance is not observed when the manufacturing conditions are changed. TABLE 3 domestic gel- like washing-up dry yeast washing powder liquid N^(o) 1-1 1-2 2 1-1 1-2 2 1-1 1-2 2 dry yeast 1-1 1 0.95 0.5 — — — — — — 1-2 0.95 1 0.65 — — — — — — 2 0.5 0.65 1 — — — — — — washing powder 1-1 — — — 1 0.86 0.3 — — — 1-2 — — — 0.86 1 0.4 — — — 2 — — — 0.3 0.4 1 — — — domestic gel- 1-1 — — — — — — 1 0.9 0.45 like washing-up 1-2 — — — — — — 0.9 1 0.4 liquid 2 — — — — — — 0.45 0.4 1

EXAMPLE 10

This example illustrates determining the impurities contaminating liquids, in this case, drinking water, with additives of different classes of substances. As a standard sample, clean drinking water was accepted here. The following liquids were tested for the presence of contaminants:

-   -   The standard water     -   The standard water with priority PAH (3,4-benzopyrene) dissolved         therein;     -   The standard water with crude petroleum dissolved therein;     -   The same water with organophosphorus insecticides dissolved         therein: Thiophos (structure 1) and foksim (structure 2);     -   The standard water with chlorine dissolved therein.     -   The standard water with medical products dissolved therein:         methyl ether of benozylecognine (structure 3);         1,3,7-trimethylxanthine (structure 4); penicillin (structure 5);         and tetracycline (structure 6);     -   The same water containing E. coli;     -   The same water contaminated with municipal wastewater.

This example demonstrates the adaptability of the method of the present invention in monitoring water systems for the purpose of exposing contamination with either chemical or biological contaminants.

As can readily be seen from Table 4, the compliance level of water contaminated with 3,4-benzopyrene with eth standard water was reduced to one half, which compliance was reduced even more when the water was contaminated with petroleum. A similar situation was also observed in the case of contamination with substances such as organophosphorus insecticides, chlorine, medical products, bacteria, and municipal wastewater.

It should be noted that adding the chlorine resulted in a drastic reduction of the conformity level of the ALS signature of a sample being tested with a sample of clean water. At the same time, visual checks of outline maps of these objects (see FIG. 2) do not permit the user to draw the same conclusions. These facts point out the high level of accuracy of the present invention. TABLE 4 Contaminant Compliance level PAH Is absent 3,4- Petroleum benzopyrene  0.5 ± 0.05 0.48 0.39 Organophosphorus compound Is absent Structure 1 Structure 2 0.95 ± 0.05 0.43 0.41 Chlorine Is absent 0.41 0.95 ± 0.05 Medical products Is absent Structure 3 Structure 4 0.95 ± 0.05 0.32 0.46 Is absent Structure 5 Structure 6 0.95 ± 0.05 0.4  0.36 Bacteria culture Is absent e-coli 0.95 ± 0.05 0.5 Municipal wastewater Is absent 0.55 0.95 ± 0.05

The foregoing description of the specific embodiments will so fully reveal the general nature of the invention that others can, by applying current knowledge, readily modify and/or adapt for various application such specific embodiments without undue experimentation and without departing from the generic concept. Therefore, such adaptations and modifications should and are intended to be comprehended within the meaning and range of equivalents of the disclosed embodiments.

It is to be understood that the phraseology or terminology employed herein is for the purpose of description and not of limitation. The means and materials for carrying out various disclosed functions may take a variety of alternative forms without departing from the invention.

Thus, the expressions “means to . . . ” and “means for . . . ” as may be found in the specification above and/or in the claims below, followed by a functional statement, are intended to define and cover whatever structural, physical, chemical, or electrical element or structures which may now or in the future exist for carrying out the recited function, whether or nor precisely equivalent to the embodiment or embodiments disclosed in the specification above. It is intended that such expressions be given their broadest interpretation.

REFERENCES

-   1. Lavrik, N. L. Chemistry and Life (magazine), XXI century, No. 3,     2000, as well as     http://www.informauka.ru/rus/2000/2000-03-06-0124_r.htm. -   2. Karagodin, G. M. Book on vodka and wine-making, Cheljabinsk, Ural     Ltd., 1998, p. 468. -   3. Dedkov, Ju. M. Russian Chemical Magazine, 2002, v. 46, No. 4, pp.     11-17. -   4. Korte, F. Ecological chemistry. Foundation and concepts. M.; Mir,     1996, p. 396. -   5. Fortoutan-Red, M. Umwelt., 1982, Bd. 2, No. 2, S. 126-134. -   6. Devjatykh, G. G., Kovaljov, I. D., Maksimov, G. A. Russian     Chemical Magazine, v. 38, No. 1, p. 96 (1994). -   7. Beyermann, K., Organic Trace Analysis. Georg Thieme Verlag,     Stuttgart-N.Y. (1982). -   8. J.-M. Lenn. Supramolecular Chemistry. VCH Verlagsgesselhaft mbH,     1995. -   9. Bakhshiev, N. G. Spectroscopy of intermolecular interactions. L.:     Nauka (1972). -   10. Lakowicz, J. R., Principles of Fluorescence Spectroscopy, Plenum     Press, New York (1983). -   11. Suppan, P. J. Photochem. and Photobiol., A: Chem., 1990, V.     50, P. 293-330. -   12. Ingrum, J. G., et al. U.S. Pat. No. 002,397, 1991. -   13. Littlejohn, D. G, et al. U.S. Pat. No. 4,998,824, 1991. -   14. Webor, G. Nature, 1961, V. 190, No. 4770, p. 27. -   15. Rho, J. H., Stuart, J. L. Anal. Chem., 1978, v. 50, No. 4, p.     620. -   16. Corfield, M. M., Hawhins, H. L., John, P., Soutar, L. Analyst,     1981, v. 106, p. 188. -   17. Siegel, J. A., Fisher, J., Gilna, C., et al. Forensic Sci.,     1985, v. 30, No. 3, p. 741. -   18. Nekrasov V. V, et al., pat RU 2150699, 2000, bull. No. 16. -   19. Nekrasov, V. V., Gasanov, D. R., Dejneko, A. O., et al. Theses     of the 2^(nd) scientific and practical conference, Identification of     quality and safety of alcoholic products, Pushchino, 2000, p. 65. -   20. C. N. Banwell, Fundamentals of Molecular Spectroscopy,     McGraw-Hill Book Company (UK) Limited (1983). -   21. Parker, C. A. Photoluminescence of Solutions. Elsevier     Publishing Company. Amsterdam-London-New York, 1968. -   22. Rabek, J. F. Experimental Methods in Photochemistry and     Photophysics. John Wiley & Sons. Chichester-New     York-Brisbane-Toronto-Singapore, 1982. 

1. A method for assaying multi-component mixtures comprising: a. introducing light from a wide-band source of optical radiation and dividing the light into spectral components, and/or extracting the assigned sections of monochromatic light with a spectral width of Δ_(i) from the light in the selected range of wave-lengths λ_(i) while ensuring the possibility of changing the spectral position of these sections with the assigned pitch Δλ_(i)≧Δ_(i); b. Focusing the extracted monochromatic light onto a probing beam having a specified geometric shape, and directing the light onto a sample under analysis; c. Irradiating a sample of a known mixture K and a sample of an unknown mixture U, by turns, with monochromatic light at the assigned wave-lengths λ₁, λ₂, . . . λ_(m) from the selected spectral range λ_(i); d. Collecting and directing light falling onto the sample, passing through the sample, or reflected by the sample, and the luminescent light to independent photo-detector devices; e. Measuring the intensity values of the light gathered on the photo detector for each of the extracted wave-lengths λ₁, λ₂, . . . λ_(m) of the selected spectral range λ_(i), such that, the probing light I₀, the light passing through a sample or reflected by a sample I_(T), and the luminescence light of a sample I_(L), including steps of decomposition of the luminescent light into a variety of spectral sections, and/or sequential extraction of the specified sections of wave-lengths of λ₁, λ₂, . . . λ_(n) with a width of Δ_(j), with the assigned pitch of Δλ_(j)≧Δ_(j), where each section corresponds with the predetermined characteristic wave-length of the light in the selected spectral range λ_(j), which is gathered and registered by a photo-detector is measured; f. Defining the relative intensity of the gathered light passing through a sample, or reflected by a sample, at each of extracted wave-lengths λ_(m), and the luminescent light for each of the extracted wave-lengths λ_(m), λ_(n) for a known mixture and unknown mixture, in accordance with the following expressions: ${{T^{K}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)} = \frac{I_{T}^{K}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)}{I_{0}^{K}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)}};\quad{{T^{U}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)} = \frac{I_{T}^{U}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)}{I_{0}^{U}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)}};$ ${{{L^{K}\left( {\lambda_{m},\lambda_{n}} \right)} = \frac{I_{L}^{K}\left( {\lambda_{m},\lambda_{n}} \right)}{I_{0}^{K}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)}};\quad{{L^{U}\left( {\lambda_{m},\lambda_{n}} \right)} = \frac{I_{L}^{U}\left( {\lambda_{m},\lambda_{n}} \right)}{I_{0}^{U}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)}}},$ where I_(T) ^(K)(λ_(m)),I_(m) ^(U)(λ_(m))—intensity values of passing or reflected light for samples of a known K mixture and an unknown U mixture measured within the specified sections λ₁, λ2, . . . λ_(m) of the extracted range of wave-lengths of incident radiation λ_(i); I_(L) ^(K)(λ_(m),λ_(n)),I_(L) ^(U)(λ_(m),λ_(n))—intensity values of the luminescent irradiated by a sample of a known K mixture and a sample of an unknown U mixture within the specified sections λ₁, λ₂, . . . λ_(n) of the extracted range of wave-lengths λ_(j) with light excitation within the specified sections λ₁, λ₂, . . . λ_(m) of the extracted range of wave-lengths λ_(i); I₀ ^(K)(λ_(m)),I₀ ^(U)(λ_(m))—intensity values of incident probing radiation falling on the appropriate samples at the time of performing measurements; g. Comparing the corresponding relative intensity values of the light passing through a sample, or reflected by a sample, on each of extracted wave-lengths λ_(m), and the luminescent light for each of the extracted wave-lengths λ_(m), λ_(n) for a known mixture and an unknown mixture, and defining the compliance between the unknown mixture and the known mixture by the following expression: ${A = {{\frac{1}{2} \times \left( {{\frac{1}{m} \times {\sum\limits_{m = 1}^{m}\frac{T^{U}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)}{T^{K}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)}}} + {\frac{1}{m \times n} \times {\sum\limits_{m = 1}^{m}{\sum\limits_{n = 1}^{n}\frac{L^{U}\left( {\lambda_{m},\lambda_{n}} \right)}{L^{K}\left( {\lambda_{m},\lambda_{n}} \right)}}}}} \right)} = {1 \pm \delta}}},$ where T^(K)(λ_(m)),T^(U)(λ_(m))—intensity values of passing or reflected light for samples of a known K mixture and unknown U mixture, normalized for the intensity of incident radiation falling on a sample at the corresponding wave-length; L^(K)(λ_(m),λ_(n)),L^(U)(λ_(m),λ_(n))—intensity values of the luminescent light irradiated by a sample of a known K mixture and unknown U mixture within the specified sections λ₁, λ₂, . . . λ_(n) of the extracted range of wave-lengths λ_(j) with light excitation within the specified sections λ₁, λ₂, . . . λ_(m) of the extracted range of wave-lengths λ_(i), normalized for intensity of incident radiation falling on a sample at the corresponding wavelength; m, n—a number of extracted sections with the wave-lengths under compared within the selected spectral ranges λ_(i) and λ_(j), accordingly; δ—a value of allowable deflections of the compared values for the unknown mixture being identified from the corresponding values for the similar values of a standard sample of a known mixture; h. Defining the presence or absence of foreign impurities in the mixture by the following expressions: ${{C_{T}\left( \lambda_{i} \right)} = {\frac{T^{U}\left( \lambda_{m + 1} \right)}{T^{K}\left( \lambda_{m + 1} \right)} - \frac{T^{U}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)}{T^{K}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)}}};$ ${{C_{L}\left( {\lambda_{i},\lambda_{j}} \right)} = {\frac{L^{U}\left( {\lambda_{m + 1},\lambda_{n + 1}} \right)}{L^{K}\left( {\lambda_{m + 1},\lambda_{n + 1}} \right)} - \frac{L^{U}\left( {\lambda_{m},\lambda_{n}} \right)}{L^{K}\left( {\lambda_{m},\lambda_{n}} \right)}}};$ at the same time, if C_(T)(λ_(i))=C_(L)(λ_(i), λ_(j))=0±δ, foreign impurities in the sample being identified are absent, and the conclusion about the presence of unwanted contaminations in the mixture under study may be drawn when there are sections C_(T)(λ_(i))>0±δ, and/or C_(L)(λ_(i), λ_(j))≠0±δ in the difference spectra.
 2. A method for analyzing a sample comprising multi-component mixture comprising: a. Obtaining an electronic absorption-luminescent signature of the multicomponent mixture; b. Comparing the electronic absorption-luminescent signatures of the sample with the electronic absorption-luminescent signature of a known mixture; c. Preparing calibration samples which represent a specially made-up mixture or multi-component solution of a strictly identical constant compound, the absorption or reflectance spectra, and luminescence spectra of which solution (mixture) overlap with the corresponding spectra of a known mixture within the selected analytical spectral ranges λ_(i) and λ_(j), i.e. have nonzero intensity in the specified ranges; d. Placing a standard sample of a known K mixture and a calibration Q sample into an analytical device; e. Measuring and transforming measured values for intensity of the light passing through or reflected by standard and calibration samples, and their luminescent light, in accordance with steps a-f of claim 1, while taking into account the step of replacing an unknown U sample with the calibration Q sample; f. Creating an electronic absorption-luminescent signature ALS_(K) of a standard sample as follows: ${{ALS}_{K} = {{K_{E}} = {\begin{matrix} \left( \frac{T_{1}^{K}}{T_{1}^{Q}} \right) & \left( \frac{L_{1,1}^{K}}{L_{1,1}^{Q}} \right) & \cdots & \left( \frac{L_{1,n}^{K}}{L_{1,n}^{Q}} \right) \\ \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \left( \frac{T_{m}^{K}}{T_{m}^{Q}} \right) & \left( \frac{L_{m,1}^{K}}{L_{m,1}^{Q}} \right) & \cdots & \left( \frac{L_{m,n}^{K}}{L_{m,n}^{Q}} \right) \end{matrix}}}},$ where: T^(K)(λ_(m)),T^(Q)(λ_(m)) -intensity values of passing or reflected light for a sample of a known K mixture and a sample of a calibration Q mixture, normalized for intensity of incident radiation falling on a sample at the corresponding wave-length; L^(K)(λ_(m),λ_(n)),L^(Q)(λ_(m),λ_(n))—intensity values of the luminescent light irradiated by a sample of a known K mixture and a calibration Q mixture within the specified sections λ₁, λ₂, . . . λ_(n) of the extracted range of wave-lengths λ_(j) with light excitation within the specified sections λ₁, λ₂, . . . λ_(m) of the extracted range of wave-lengths λ_(i), normalized for intensity of incident radiation falling on a sample at the corresponding wave-length; g. Entering the electronic signature of a standard sample ALS_(K) into a computer database, and/or saving the electronic signature of the standard sample on an intermediate medium; h. Repeating step (e) with a sample of an unknown mixture, including the step of replacing a standard sample K with a calibration sample Q, which is strictly identical with the calibration sample used when measuring a standard sample, and creating an electronic signature ALS_(U) of a sample being identified: ${{ALS}_{U} = {{U_{E}} = {\begin{matrix} \left( \frac{T_{1}^{U}}{T_{1}^{Q}} \right) & \left( \frac{L_{1,1}^{U}}{L_{1,1}^{Q}} \right) & \cdots & \left( \frac{L_{1,n}^{U}}{L_{1,n}^{Q}} \right) \\ \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \left( \frac{T_{m}^{U}}{T_{m}^{Q}} \right) & \left( \frac{L_{m,1}^{U}}{L_{m,1}^{Q}} \right) & \cdots & \left( \frac{L_{m,n}^{U}}{L_{m,n}^{Q}} \right) \end{matrix}}}};$ i. Comparing electronic signatures of an unknown mixture ALS_(U)=∥U_(E)∥ being tested with similar data for a standard sample of a known mixture ALS_(K)=∥K_(E)∥ by the following expression: ${{A_{ALS}} = \frac{U_{E}}{K_{E}}},$ such that, a conclusion on the identity of the unknown mixture and the certain mixture may be drawn when all cells of the matrix ∥A_(ALS)∥ contain only unit elements (i.e. a_(i)=a_(i,j)=1±δ); j. Defining the presence or absence of unwanted contaminations for the mixture under study by the following expression: ${{C_{ALS}} = \frac{{U_{E}} - {K_{E}}}{K_{E}}},$ at the same time, a determining the presence of unwanted contaminations in the mixture ∥C_(ALS)∥ when in the matrix there are nonzero elements |c_(i), c_(i,j)|>|±δ|, the values of which exceed the value of allowable deflections of the values being compared for the unknown mixture being identified, from the corresponding values for the similar values of a standard sample of a known mixture;
 3. The method according to claim 1 further comprising measuring intensity values of Raman scattering of the identified sample and a standard sample including the following steps: a. irradiating the samples an unknown and a known mixture, by turns, with a monochromatic line of a narrow-band (lined) source of light at one or several selected fixed frequencies v_(r); b. Gathering the light of Raman scattering onto a photo-detector device; c. Measuring the intensity of the light on each of the extracted frequencies v₁, v₂, . . . v_(p) of the selected spectral range, gathered onto a photo-detector, namely: the exciting light falling on a sample I_(ex), and the light of Raman scattering of a sample I_(R), including steps of decomposition of the light of Raman scattering into a variety of spectral sections, and/or sequential extraction of the specified frequency sections v₁, v₂, . . . , v_(p) with a width of Δ_(r), with assigned pitch Δv_(r)≧Δ_(r), where each section corresponds to the predetermined characteristic frequency of the light in the selected spectral range v_(r), which is gathered and registered by a photo-detector; d. Defining the relative intensity of the gathered light of Raman scattering at each of the extracted frequencies v₁, v₂, . . . , v_(p) for a known and unknown mixtures in accordance with the following expressions: ${{R^{K}\left( {v_{ex},v_{p}} \right)} = \frac{I_{R}^{K}\left( {v_{ex},v_{p}} \right)}{I_{ex}^{K}}};{{R^{U}\left( {v_{ex},v_{p}} \right)} = \frac{I_{R}^{U}\left( {v_{ex},v_{p}} \right)}{I_{ex}^{U}}};$ where: I_(R) ^(K)(v_(ex),v_(p)),I_(R) ^(U)(v_(ex),v_(p))—intensity values of Raman scattering irradiated by a sample of a known K mixture and a sample of an unknown U mixture within the specified sections v_(l), v₂, . . . v_(p) of the extracted frequency range v_(r) with light excitation at one of the selected frequencies v_(ex); I_(ex) ^(K),I_(ex) ^(U)—intensity values of the exciting light falling on corresponding samples at the time of performing measurements; e. Comparing data for the mixture being tested with similar data for a standard sample of a known mixture by the following expression: ${A = {\frac{1}{2} \times \left( \frac{R^{U}\left( {v_{ex},v_{p}} \right)}{R^{K}\left( {v_{ex},v_{p}} \right)} \right) \times \left( {{\frac{1}{m} \times {\sum\limits_{m = 1}^{m}\frac{T^{U}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)}{T^{K}\left( \lambda_{m} \right)}}} + {\frac{1}{m \times n} \times {\sum\limits_{m = 1}^{m}{\sum\limits_{n = 1}^{n}\frac{L^{U}\left( {\lambda_{m},\lambda_{n}} \right)}{L^{K}\left( {\lambda_{m},\lambda_{n}} \right)}}}}} \right)}},$  the unknown mixture and the known mixture are identical when A=1±δ.
 4. The method according to claim 2 comprising comparing electronic signatures containing spectral profiles of absorption, luminescence and Raman scattering intensities for the mixture (RALS_(U)) and a standard sample (RALS_(K)), which electronic signatures are formed by the method of claim 3, wherein the Raman matrixes are normalized in the following way: a. Preparing a calibration sample Q_(R), which calibration sample represents a specially made-up mixture or a multi-component solution of a strictly identical constant compound, the luminescence spectrum of which overlaps with the Raman spectrum of the known mixture within the selected analytical spectral ranges; b. Measuring the intensity of Raman scattering, converting the results as in steps d-h of claim 2, and forming the electronic Raman signatures of a standard sample and the unknown mixture being identified in accordance with the following expressions: ${{K_{R}} = {{{\begin{matrix} \left( \frac{R_{1,1}^{K}}{L_{1,1}^{Q_{R}}} \right) & \cdots & \left( \frac{R_{1,p}^{K}}{L_{1,p}^{K}} \right) \\ \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \left( \frac{R_{q,1}^{K}}{L_{q,1}^{Q_{R}}} \right) & \cdots & \left( \frac{R_{q,p}^{K}}{L_{q,p}^{Q_{R}}} \right) \end{matrix}}{U_{R}}} = {\begin{matrix} \left( \frac{R_{1,1}^{U}}{L_{1,1}^{Q_{R}}} \right) & \cdots & \left( \frac{R_{1,p}^{U}}{L_{1,p}^{K}} \right) \\ \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \left( \frac{R_{q,1}^{U}}{L_{q,1}^{Q_{R}}} \right) & \cdots & \left( \frac{R_{q,p}^{U}}{L_{q,p}^{Q_{R}}} \right) \end{matrix}}}},$ where R_(q,p) ^(K),R_(q,p) ^(U)—intensity values of Raman scattering light, normalized for intensity of the exciting light I_(ex), for samples of the known K mixture and the unknown U mixture, measured at the frequencies I_(p) with light excitation at the frequency I_(q); L_(q,p) ^(Q) ^(R) —the luminescence intensity for a calibration sample Q_(R), normalized for the intensity of the exciting light I_(ex); c. Comparing the electronic signatures of the unknown mixture ∥U_(E)∥ being tested with similar data for a standard sample of a known mixture ∥K_(E)∥, including the step of comparing electronic Raman matrixes (RALS_(U,K)), by the following expression: ${{A_{RALS}} = {\left( \frac{U_{R}}{K_{R}} \right) \times \left( \frac{U_{E}}{K_{E}} \right)}},$ where the identity of samples is defined by the following attribute: ∥A_(RALS)∥=1±δ.
 5. The method according to claim 1 wherein samples of the mixture being identified and the standard mixture are dissolved in appropriate solvents.
 6. The method according to claim 1 wherein the mixture being analyzed is water. 